Tuesday, November 14, 2017

She may as well have stayed. In addition to scrapping the legal requirement to name fathers or face a penalty...

As part of a major welfare system overhaul agreed with the Greens, the government would remove other excessive sanctions and ensure people could access what they were entitled to.

And here is Carmel Sepuloni propagating more lies. Lies are OK on the Left. And when the media reporting are also Left, they enable them.

Ms Sepuloni said some parents had good reason for not naming the other parent."The most common reason for not naming the parent was often family-violence related and so, keeping that mind, it's almost like you're doubly punishing these women and their children. So, we're not going to allow that to continue."

Your benefit payments may be reduced if you don’t legally identify the other parent or apply for Child Support. In some situations you may not need to do this, for example if you or your child would be at risk of violence. Work and Income can tell you more about this.

There is already an exception to the rule for cases of violence.

So what is the real reason for the change? It's the imposition of radical feminism whereby women's rights are elevated above children's....with the added bonus of screwing the taxpayer.

Monday, November 13, 2017

I have concluded our new prime minister Jacinda Ardern is clever stupid.She's quick, has good analytical skills and communicates well. There's no doubt she's clever. But she's stupid on how the world works and lacks thought-through principles and values. She bobs along on feelings and sounding good and thereby perfectly in tune with a media that emotes rather than reports and analyses. By her own account she grew up Mormon but jumped to socialism, becoming president of the International Union of Socialist Youth. She substituted one whacky religion for another. Her work experience is university and Parliament, first as a Labour Party staffer, then as an MP. She's driven by belief, not understanding. She can't argue ideas and must dismiss her opponents as uncaring or not yet enlightened. The shortcoming in opposing ideas is not the ideas themselves but the moral deficiency of those expressing them. When asked if capitalism had failed low-income New Zealanders, the prime minister-designate said: "If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that's a blatant failure. What else could could you describe it as?" "Hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive." That means "hundreds of thousands of children" dying because of material want. It's nonsense. There would be UN relief missions and international popstars having concerts to aid New Zealand were her claim true.It isn't. It's part of the media-manufactured Jacindamania that such rubbish claims are passed over. She cares, that's enough. It's as if her nonsensical hyperbole underscores the extent of her caring. "Yes, she might have been out by a few hundred children, and yes, they're not exactly not surviving, but her heart is in the right place." The problem of poor and neglected children is not the fault of capitalism but of welfarism. Generations of handouts have robbed too many of any sense of personal responsibility even for the care and upbringing of their own children. It's perfectly respectable now not to provide for yourself, nor house your family, nor commit in any way to your partner in child-making and to have children without the ability to provide or care or them. It's not your fault. You're a victim. Capitalism has failed. Ms Ardern's blinkered, if not blind, view of the world sees her advocating more of the policies causing the very problems concerning her rather than treating the cause. No facts, no analysis, no experience would shift her view. Her socialism is her religion. I'm a white, privileged male. I would say all of the above, wouldn't I ? I'm threatened by a female in charge and fear that my greedy exploitation of the poor is at an end. There, I dismissed my argument myself to save her supporters the effort.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Radio news has Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development, saying she will get rid of the penalty for not naming fathers of children who are supported by benefits. We knew it was coming and new information indicates NZ First is going to support the change.

To reiterate on past posts, one of the major reasons mothers refuse to name fathers is to help them dodge child support.

Heather Roy: When will he admit that this is just a rort so that fathers can dodge child support, and why should taxpayers always have to pick up the bill?Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is a rort, and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations, and we will make sure they do, as much as we can.

Maharey meant it and he increased the penalty in an effort to reduce the rort.

But today Labour don't care what is costs the taxpayers. And apparently they don't care about children being denied their father's name on their birth certificate.

Sepuloni will argue that the penalty isn't working. However the numbers who incur a section 70a penalty have fallen. In 2004 there were 19,443.

Comments policy

About Me

Lindsay Mitchell has been researching and commenting on welfare since 2001. Many of her articles have been published in mainstream media and she has appeared on radio,tv and before select committees discussing issues relating to welfare. Lindsay is also an artist who works under commission and exhibits at Wellington, New Zealand, galleries.